James Fallows of The Atlantic was a guest tonight on "Piers Morgan Tonight" and discussed last night's Christine O'Donnell interview walk-off. "The only explanation for why Ms. O'Donnell responded the way she did is she just must have panicked," he told Piers Morgan. "There's no good explanation for letting that become such an awkward moment."

Fallows was Pres. Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter, and talked about politicians generally. "What politicians can usually do is say 'my views on this are well known,'" he said.

soundoff(83 Responses)

Debby Robinson

Sorry Piers..I realize you are a Brit uit...Jeanne missed the most infamous walk-out of all timea...the night Jack Parr walked off the Tonight show because they wouldn't let him tell a joke about a WC.. Get the tape..it is hilarious and just the first of the walk-outs

how can anyone take peirs seriously. hes a joke I cant even watch cnn anymore all they have left is Anderson Cooper. He is the only objective reporter on your whole station. Cnn will be way of the dinosaurs within a decade. Seriously is this what we really read to talk about? Piers sucks so much he gives england a bad name. Cnn needs to remove this traitor and bring an american on there show. Its just like Obama campaining over seas. what the hells going on whit cnn. do you even broadcast news, or just your left agenda.

No, to the contrary, Morgan was rude because he violated the agreement for the interview. Most people don't know this, but before an interview the topics are agreed to, but not the questions. This prevents politicians and others from wasting their time answering questions about, say, cookie recipes. He tried to play gotcha journalism, and she walked off. She's still a nutjob, but she's right on this instance.

Piers was playing gotcha journalism. O'Donnell's people spoke with Morgan's people and agreed to come on air to talk about a specific list of topics. He decided that his word meant nothing and went after the salcious issues that bottom feeders are interested in. She walked out. Good for her.

For CO to just walk out is okay and acceptable...no big deal. Being an optioned political figure is not an easy position to hold.

However her defense of walking out is just the same old "sisterhood of victim hood". The same worn out song and dance women like to sing....men are privileged and bad while woman flawless are disadvantaged.

Truth is that both men and women experiences privilege and disadvantage due to their gender. What sets them apart is that men choose not to play victim and women do.

Morgan is rude. He tried to get Ann Coulter to talk about her personal life - she stood fast and there was a stand off. Ann Coulter won. Morgan is no Larry King. He has no class, interrupts people all the time (which is rude). He is not an Anmerican so why is he having an opinion on American politics? Sure he can ask questions but that is all he should do. We have tried to watch his show and happened to watch it the night this was on. Too bad O'Connell wasn't quick on her feet. She could have turned the tables on Morgan with the cell phone hacking scandal. Don't think Morgan would appreciate that. I am an independent voter and appreciate an interviewer that is courteous while being inquisitive. He is brining a tabloid element to CNN which is too bad. I and my husband maybe watch once a week if nothing else happends to be on that is more interesting. With Larry King we rarely missed an episode and recorded episodes we missed. Wish we could say the same for Morgan.

Piers, you will always be an elitest Socalist Boor! I am glad she left and so am I another viewer gone from having to watch your boorish ugly face. It is apalling that CNN thinks yu can help them out of the ratings doldrums.

Wow-
O'Donnell–I don't know your first name..You have a national venue and nothing to say except you don't like an interviewer's tone? Do you know how many people out here actually have intelligent thoughts, even ideas and don't have prime time on CNN? Say something of value or go away. Who are you anyway

Concerning Christine O'Donnel, Piers should understand that someone who casually mentioned a high school attraction to witchcrfaft and paid the price for it is not going to voluntarily march into another no win topic. Regardles of what you feel about gay marriage, there are plenty of people who feel the opposite. Personally, I am not interested in marginal politicains or marginal show business people.

She did have something to say, and he wouldn't let her say it. He just kept goading her about silly things that no one cares about, because he has no respect for her, or most of his guests. It was his interview that had no value, so she did go away. Good for her!

Newsflash! An interview is not a platform for the interviewee. It is a situation in which the interviewer questions the interviewee about his/her opinions or experience. Ms. O'Donnell made a fool of herself for attempting to control the interview.

She has NOTING to say. She has proven time and time again that she is irrelevant, an opportunist, and simply ignorant of how governance works. It seems that only thinking people see these "Tea Partiers" for what they are: A bunch of uninformed "religious" zealots with nothing to offer but plenty of criticism with no practical solutions to America's problems.

Put Buddy Roemer on your show. He has answer for everything and great ideas. It would be an honest and up
front.Tired of the same old people. Give him a chance to through his hat in the ring..He is the best person for America

Piers, you weren't out of line by any stretch, but please, please, please, stop beginning sentences with "I mean." It makes no sense to start a sentence that way when you haven't said anything yet to be explained. Even Anderson Cooper does it, and it's a like a virus spreading amongst journalist.

Piers was rude, which is par for him. I can't even stand to listen to him anymore, he is so contentious and stuck up. This is a shame 'cause he has a lovely accent, but that is the only nice thing I can say about him.

Use your dictionary, Susan. By no stretch of the imagination can Piers' interaction with O'Donnell be termed "rude." He was simply asking a question about a subject included in her book. Why didn't she simply answer?

I think the funniest thing about the interruption of the interview was that she kept having some aide on the side prompt her on what she felt and what she should say. At one point she said, "I came here to talk about the book, not to be... uh, ya know..." and then loses her grasp of words until the voice on the side prompts her. She responds, "Yeah! Not to endure a rude talk show host." It was like she was a little ventriloquist's dummy.

No, you're not the only one who noticed that she needed her handlers to tell what level of indignation she should feel. And actually none was appropriate. So sadly silly, but in the popular narrative of elitists media-types trying to trap politicians with gotcha questions, this will strengthen O'Donell among her base. A tellingly goofy moment for anyone outside that narrative, but confirmation and escalation for the sheeple within.

While it's all very well to discuss how politicians dodge the question, that's on them. I would appreciate a more introspective exploration on how interviewers go flabby on dodgy politicians. WHY? There are plenty of examples – including last week when David Gregory just badgered Bachman with "well, YES or NO? YESS or NOO," instead of a less bullying, more rigorous exploration of her logic. For the rest of the week, the logic failed members of the media, as they puzzled over whether the answer was "yes or no" regarding the appointment of gays to her potential administration. Why not simply play out her logic with the following: "Well, your views are clear that gay people are sinful and unhealthy, so a gay person would have to share this view and demonstrate self-loathing (so that you could tell that they shared your views in addition to your other criteria) in order to be in your administration." PIERS, dodgy politicians are a dime a dozen, but I'd like to see you address interviewers who seem to bully while not showing true journalistic courage. I like your show, so that's my suggestion.

Piers, you have gone beyond your boundaries as a host by pushing your biased and personally opinionated beliefs into creating a false image of the people you interview. You should be ashamed of your actions on national television, ashamed of your respect for others, and honestly ask yourself if you are being ethical. I applaud Christine O'Donnell for walking off your show. To CNN: Please re-consider Piers as your tonight show host! You have lost my loyal and faithful viewership, as well as others with me.

Piers: Since you try to be so "proper" and "mannerly", I suggest you put the brakes on your rudeness and overbearing ways. I just heard on "Good Morning America" that Christine O'Donnell has called you a "Cheeky Bugger"!!!! That should really raise your ire, especially if you know what a "bugger" is. Check it out and be offended like you should be. I seriously doube if she know the meaning of the word either.

A truly profound insight by James Fallows, who is supposed to know something about communication. She didn't walk off the show because of the question about gay marriage - what Fallows and other pundits are trying to suggest. It wasn't that she "panicked"..... she came on the show to talk about her book (and Morgan's staff clearly suggested that she would have a chance to do that.) Instead, Morgan just hit her with one "gotcha" question after another, from start to finish and wouldn't let up or move on. One or two gotchas might have been tolerable. But you'd have to be a masochist to sit and let him continue with the hatchet job as he continued his relentless assualt. Wonder if he'd sit through an interview that was positioned as an opportunity to talk about his CNN show only to find that the interviewer simply continued to ask a relentless series about his telephone hacking activities.

How is asking a question about someone's public statements a 'gotcha' question? I work in business and people constantly ask executives what they mean by things they've said and done. Its professional courtesy to give proper answers. If you're views have changed, you say so. If not, you reiterate what you said. The only thing I see when politicians dodge these question is a sort of cowardice associated with not wanting to recite opinions in unfriendly environments. In business, asking the tough questions is referred to as 'shrewd' 'insightful', and 'intelligent.' But I guess in heavily scripted political environments, this is called a 'gotcha' question. If I say our market forecast is going to be x units this year, and they are not, I have to be accountable for the difference. This is a reasonable expectation for any adult, let alone public figure.

Considering that O'donell's publisher is Time, Inc. (the company that owns CNN) and is not spending any money on marketing the book, this clever scam makes sense. She is getting lots of free press for her "walk off". The questions that Piers asked were a bit extreme (masturbation, really?), indicating that his intent was to give her a reason to "walk off". This only helps to get him ratings as well. Kudos to the coordinated marketing teams at Time Warner....Piers Morgan gets ratings, that will drive interest in his show and drive advertising revenue and Christine O'donell gets lots of free press and drives interest in her idiotic book. Notice how there is very little conversation about the content of the book in general.

(I really can not understand why American media has to go overseas to get interviewers for talk positions. Out of 300.000.000 population you can not get a show host that speaks American English. It is extremely boring to try and listen to someone who talks like they have a mouth full of mush. Get rid of these mush mouth foriegners ,especially the Slimey Limeys that are rude and overbearing. CNN you have lowered your standards over the past few years to where your hosts are not doing your few listeners to turn you off. They must work cheaper.you get what you pay for.

Why on earth are you still on television? You clearly have the mentality of a tabloid editor, and you should go back on the rag in your motherland.

1) You choose barely relevent people who will most likely say something outrageous (as opposed to relevent people who don't rely on sensationalism)
2) You give the public what they want, reruns and top hits (as opposed to actually following a productive line of conversation about the topic at hand, (although, how could that be productive? you chose a lame author with a contentless book... of course you had to go back to "witch" and "anti-masturbator"))
3) You rely on the publics hatred of your object for shaming to punch in some witty one liners (no you're not rather charming. you are rude, insufferable, and so boring I can't recall a single original or enlightening thought from you ever. EVER.)

If Ms. O'Donnell is going to play in the big league, she needs to put on her big girl panties and stop whining! She obviously only wants interviews if they go her way. Piers, you said nothing "creepy". Ms. O'Donnell just wants the spotlight and attention and this incident is a perfect example. It's women like her (and a few others) who give women in politics a bad rap.

O'Donnell is no different from other "tea-baggers" who only want to talk about what they want to talk about. And if you don't agree, they will take off and go somewhere else. Frankly, Piers was well within his rights as an interviewer to ask the questions he asked. After all, it is the Piers Morgan show. His name is on the show; he gets to ask the questions. If O'Donnell wants dictate the interview parameters, let her get her own show. I daresay there are few who will watch. I hope there are few who will buy her book.

I don't bother watching Piers Morgan anymore, but caught this on a news clip. Your're right, this guy is an idiot. You can't even call him a washed up "has been", because he was never anything more than a journalist for some rag newspaper(s) & yet he claims he was some big newspaper mogul in Britain! Why doesn't he tell people why he can never go back there. It's because people in Britain know him for what he is & have absolutely no respect or use for him. What a joke. He ends up here. How much longer do you think people in America will buy his crap? He can only function if he has total control as well as the benefit of editing. It's actually pretty funny to watch him stumble through a live interview or try to add something intelligent to a conversation with guests on a political, economic, or just about any other matter. He can't carry on an intelligent conversation & just makes a fool out of himself. He only finds strength if he can find someone vulnerable and, like a bully or the pyschopath ex-husband or family member, won't let up on a subject until they become emotional, or if they're smart, walk off the set. He seems to get pleasure out of inflicting this kind of hurt and it seems to give him a sense of power and accomplishment, which he cannot achieve any other way. What a claim to fame! What a loser! And then to listen to him trying to defend his actions is so ridiculous and amateur. I understand that CNN was desperate to fill that time slot, but what a shame that they couldn't take the time to find someone relevant. How much longer can CNN go until they just get rid of him & the shame that goes along with having him on their network. Let him go so that he can try to re-establish himself in some other far-away land, where he can boast what a media mogul and icon he was in America.

She's a boring person with a shallow view of the world and thin skin to match. But more importantly, she collapses immediately under pressure. She is not a good leader. She should not run for office. She should only be writing books for children.

Christie was there to sell a book. Piers was asking about her position on "gay marriage" as written in the book. She did not want to talk about, or had not read the "gay marriage" chapter. So she left.

What's with all this 'be polite to people running for public office' crap! If you're going to run for public office you had better be ready to have the public examine every single part of your life and opinions. If you want public office it is more than rude not answer straight forward questions and I could care less how they are put!

How dare P. Morgan ask her about things she put in a book and in her campaign... and said publically... Actually, who really cares? Christine O'Donnell is a complete non-starter from here on out. She got really lucky by being in the election last time around, but now she's got nothing. Nobody is going to read her book. She has no chance to get back into the ring anywhere after scuttling Mike Castle and tea party backlash is going to filter her back to the lunatic fringe. Centrist and moderate Republicans point to people like her for destroying the Republican brand. Her best shot is to try to become a pundit, but I doubt Bill Marr is going to take her back and Palin's her territory pretty well marked.

Thanks Piers for asking what matters. Too many hosts are too chummy with their guests. Sometimes it appears that the guests have prior knowledge of questions being asked of them. If someone wanted to know the real O'donell or bachmann don't watch Fox, they just are not gonna ask the hard questions. Same goes for liberals on channels such as MSNBC

I just so thoroughly do not understand what is wrong here. O'Donnell was not on the show because she wrote a book: she was on because she ran for office, lost, and THEN wrote a book. So if her entire reason for appearing is due to her being a politically significant voice, how could it possibly be out of line to ask her views on one of the hottest of hot button social issues in the country today, and one which every other liberal or conservative politician has to answer? How is it that a self-proclaimed "Troublemaker" requires special protection from having to answer questions that every other politician has to answer? Even George W Bush, who regularly refused to answer questions about alleged cocaine use, never stormed off stage, to my recollection.

Because a person running for office and a book peddler are two different creatures. One you can ask hot button issues and consider it public service... the other you should ask hard and serious questions, but they mostly should just be about the book.

He asks her whether she has lust in her heart, whether she things masturbation is dirty, airs some footage of her as a teen saying rediculous things, and THEN gay marriage? Did you ever wonder how tabloid editors get people to say embarrassing stuff? That would be wrong to do to a canidate, definitely over top for a book writer.

And did you ever stop to wonder why he's inviting her in the first place? A lot of people think she's running for president. Score one for providing news, huh?

He simply asked; "What is your opinion on Gay marriage?". No Comment for now, and a smile would have been nice.
It's called an talkshow, because they ask for your opinions on matters of public relevance or social interest as a popular figure. It wasn't a press conference or PR stunt.
O'neill seem to have a shadow of controversy hovering over her and Piers had her clear up the "Yo I roll wit witches in their ditches but I aint no witch" thing she had going on.
And for walking out of the show: could there be more a selfish political trick than that? I mean What was she feeling like? A queen or something.
Piers, nice you didn't chicken out and apologize for asking a simple question.
For those who think Morgan was rude, Stick to Reality Tv and Movies, where nothing goes wrong in your sweet little world filled with Kardashians and Brad Pitts.Cool with that? Cool.

' Amazing".....All you people watch This Brit on CNN, who has no idea about how We Americans Live or love interviewing A Buffon Cristine Odonnel. " Amazing" comical. Im a conservative, yes Tea Party memember and
this Woman is NO friend of ours.

Typically, try on some any sort of footwear while driving the bike. Even so, in order to obtain performance, convenience, and possibly stay away from accidental injuries, you need to wear a great pair associated with bicycling footwear. These shoes are specifically meant to produce more electrical power in every single pedal stroke. Over the clip-in technique, these are collateralized to the pedals. In this way, a good syndication of push is used to the upstroke and also straight down stroke resulting to a much more effective cycling action.

Trying to find an ideal Fit

Bicycling shoes or boots are available in 2 types. You will find individuals regarding road bicycling as well as off-road riding a bike. The first variety can be characterized by their own exposed spikes. These shoes are generally solely regarding riding a bike uses because they are really miserable just to walk throughout. The 2nd kind offers submerged shoes, this make sure they are suitable for walking. You'll find different styles regarding bicycling shoes or boots utilizing various materials and engineering.

Body of your cycling footwear needs to perfect to be able to accomplish their own purpose. They need to be comfortably comfortable and there must be enough area inside shoe to be able to move your own toes and fingers with no restriction. It's very important that your high heels are usually snug inside shoes or boots and so they don't move whilst you your pedal so that you can carry out correctly. The particular instep of your feet mustn't be pressed snugly when buckling your current shoes or boots. You know you've found your own in shape when you're able to rest the forefoot without having contracting it which the broadest part of the boot is able to cradle the actual ball of your foot easily.

Appealing Capabilities to take into consideration

Top quality cycling shoes could be recognized through their particular feet. Less costly brand names typically employ plastic-type material sole. But they cost less, these kinds of riding a bike footwear is in addition heavier along with the bottoms are generally more supple. Highway biking shoes or boots have to be light and portable as well as the feet have to be rigid to enable you to pedal with additional efficiency along with strength. Higher-end makes employ graphite because soles to permit a lot more overall flexibility with no problem lenen regarding fat. Though pricey, they're a good expense with regard to passionate individuals.

The top area of cycling sneakers also use light substance to provide his or her consumers convenience and sturdiness. With respect to the cost of these comfortable shoes, materials may range coming from real leather-based, synthetic leather for you to plastic-type material. Additionally, there are various ways utilized to fasten a couple of cycling sneakers. It can be done by simply laces upwards, buckling way up, as well as low dye strapping up. Any time fitted the bicycling shoe, it's not necassary to really feel just about any stress when fastening that. Any kind of force may leave the feet numb because blood vessels struggles to circulate appropriately. It's also vital that you find out if the sneakers could be fastened safely and securely. Virtually any loose element can get twisted inside sprocket and also damage a person along the way.

Riding a bike Shoes or boots for several Forms of Utilizes

Each and every self-control involving riding a bike provides equivalent riding a bike sneakers designed to meet up with its requirements. Road cycling sneakers have narrow styles using light uppers as well as hard feet to ensure rate. The actual shoes are subjected to ensure that hard materials can be used for the only real. Your tightness in the lone within cycling sneakers is critical in order that the cyclist can simply use a effective pressure around the your pedal. Biking shoes or boots do not require soles which might be while tough so that they get recessed cleats. Smoother materials can be used for really the only to allow for walking.

Visiting shoes mimic that regarding common running shoes because bicycle visiting means prolonged journeys in addition to a large amount of going for walks you should definitely around the bicycle. The actual cleats are not exposed and the lone is usually manufactured from rubber pertaining to freedom. Riding a bike shoes or boots with regard to alpine race wants a lot more stableness, handle along with velocity. It's very important how the sole holds onto the specialised pedals essential with this distinct kind of bike. The foot part along with feet cover are given along with additional help to make certain fluidity inside movement.

Hypoglycemia (common usage) is also a term in popular culture and alternative medicine for a common, often self-diagnosed, condition characterized by shakiness and altered mood and thinking, but without measured low glucose or risk of severe harm. It is treated by changing eating patterns.*;....

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.